May 24, 2016

"This is
revolting celebrity sycophancy at its worst."/"I am so sick of the NYT Newsy-Entertainment Department treating this loathsome creep like someone worthy of attention."/"This is not an article about anything worthy of print."/"NYT, why oh why are you consistently running front page above-the-crease article... I think we all understand by now that he's not a traditional politician...."/"OMG make it stop. 'Donald J. Trump has turned the campaign news conference, typically a dreary affair, into a riveting display of self-promotion.' What? Riveting? Why is the Times diving into the cesspool of worst possible media "news" coverage head first? Who CARES about his attempts to bamboozle with a spectacle? Riveting?? As if he gets and A+ for effort? As if he is somehow on top of this? Shrewd showmanship?? Did I really just READ that? Shrewd for who?"/"Stop. No really just STOP. Please resist the urge to give this buffoon more coverage than he requires. He's playing you (the media) for the chumps you are."

Top-rated comments at a NYT article titled "Lights, Camera, Trump," which had me surprised when I got to the end of the page, past the all the many pictures. I spent some time looking for a link to click to a second page and scrolling even after I'd hit the bottom to see if I could make more material appear.

What amuses me is that this same level of media over-attention was visible approximately eight years ago. The subject of the attention was a fellow by the name of Obama, and at the time these same nytimes commentators were wetting themselves with excitement after each new article.

Trump = the Painting of Kramer:I sense great vulnerability. A man-child crying out for love. An innocent orphan in the post-modern world. / I see a parasite. A sexually depraved miscreant who is seeking only to gratify his basest and most immediate urges. / His struggle is man's struggle. He lifts my spirit. /

Most hating of Trump seems at root to be a hatred of his positive attitude that does not see a hierarchy of natural superiors. It is Thomas Jefferson's old radical claim that all men are created equal being asserted in public.

The result is a visceral reaction from the men who see themselves as a part of a superior group.

And then the cheeky Trump shows them he is the better man at competitive endeavors. Arrrggg!

This is difficult. Obviously Trump hasn't the baggage of the various private duels, shootings, brawls, any number of hard words that we would have heard today but went unreported (or unreliably reported) at the time. He also hasn't got all the massacres, tortures, summary executions and other controversial episodes in his public career.

On the other hand, Trump hasn't got a legend of incredible personal heroism and military glory, nor of service to the state (as in conquest to increase its reach and preservation of the homeland).

On both ends of the chart Jackson was a far more extreme man. More extreme than any other President.

Trump and Jackson are similar in seeing ALL of the USA as worth defending from European Monarchs. And that includes the Western territories across the mountains from the Eastern seaboard Colony's Mercantile Fortune owners who would as soon sell out the Mississipi River Valley's inner third of the Continent to the British or to the Spanish as look at them.

Since 1840s the Mississippi border was moved on to California, thanks in large part to a Jackson protege President named Polk who was in DC and to the wisdom of an illiterate Scots-Irish mountain man named Kit Carson who guided Fremont on the scene.

The stubborn Scotsman Trump wants to protect that work done by Jackson, Polk, and Carson. And the Eastern Seaboard owners of fortunes in money still see him doing that as uncivilized.

I got the feeling that if you in the media, you would much rather get assigned to the Trump campaign than Hillary's campaign. At a minimum for entertainment and excitement. Maybe their political senses lean left, but they don't like her either.

And more than likely for its relevancy. He's going to be the next President of the United States.

But it isn't. Its disparaging, snide and sarcastic and, well, not positive.

" spectacle of self-promotion and media manipulation."" he will be busy starring in his news conferences, selling steaks, hotels and, of course, himself."" Fact-challenged claims will be uttered."" No presidential candidate has ever intertwined business interests and political aspirations as thoroughly as Mr. Trump. His bizarre news conference at the Jupiter golf course in March doubled as a prime-time infomercial for his products, which he displayed one by one: Trump’s steaks, Trump’s water and Trump’s magazine."

etc.

The problem the commenters are on about isn't that the reporters don't hate Trump, its that they don't hate him enough.

Sure it is a hit piece, but it just makes Trump seem more powerful. Great photos. As buwaya said..it isn't negative enough. That's what the nyt readers need now. Hillary is failing, bill looks and sounds weak and confused. Bernie is still crazy Bernie. How did it happen they ask. Trump isn't upsetting the apple cart. He threw it over the cliff at the start. No one knows what he does or says next. The snowflakes are worried, big time. They want trump in the same box as McCain and Romney. Easy to hit. Not this time. And it's freaking them out. Good

NYT commenters, on this article and others, are so uniform in outlook that it is tempting to conclude that the paper's readership consists of people who don't get out much. They only talk to each other. The paper is losing its credibility in national discussions and is becoming instead a megaphone for a single point of view. I'm not sure its leaders understand the long-term consequences of this self-initiated marginalization. Honestly, the product used to be better, thoughtful and more interesting, but that is getting to be a long time ago.

"I'm not sure its leaders understand the long-term consequences of this self-initiated marginalization. "

They understand very well. The NYT, like most newspapers, was once a commercial enterprise that made its way by selling newspapers and especially by selling advertising. Thats no longer a viable business model, so most US newspapers and other news outlets now mainly sell political influence. Many are owned by players to give them a seat on the table.

Thats their product, for the moment, but everyone knows even that is a declining market. There are no long terms consequences because there is no long term.

Those same commenters no doubt fellated Obama over the past eight years and would provide similar service to Hillary until their faces looked like glazed donuts. I guess they should know a little about sycophants from their own personal experience.

"The NYT, like most newspapers, was once a commercial enterprise that made its way by selling newspapers and especially by selling advertising."

Good point. The Times' biggest stockholder is Carlos Slim(e), who made his enormous fortune with the Mexican government's protection of his monopoly on telephone service in that country. He made a lesser amount providing free cellphones from the federal government to the poor in the US.

Meanwhile, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos "invested" $250 million of his personal $50billion+ Amazon fortune to buy the Washington Post, which could not fetch such a price from any other buyer.

The idea of independent news organizations is new and rather quaint. In the early days of the republic, newspapers were house organs of political parties, and their points of view were well understood. We are back to that period, but several generations of Americans are not schooled in civics, let alone history, and don't understand how the landscape has shifted.

"I'm not sure its leaders understand the long-term consequences of this self-initiated marginalization. "

They understand very well. The NYT, like most newspapers, was once a commercial enterprise that made its way by selling newspapers and especially by selling advertising. Thats no longer a viable business model, so most US newspapers and other news outlets now mainly sell political influence. Many are owned by players to give them a seat on the table.

Thats their product, for the moment, but everyone knows even that is a declining market. There are no long terms consequences because there is no long term. 5/24/16, 5:53 PM "

President Trumpy's DoJ will make sure that Slim's investment in the NYT will be very short term and the NYT's not too long long term will be considerably shorten.